O.J. did it.
Real lesson is get more conservative law and order folks into leadership positions in office.
I think there is more than just racism going on in Ferguson. I don't expect the MSM to show any curiosity about the culture of fear that prevails in the projects where Big Mike was shot, but c'mon, it's obvious many black people don't cooperate with poleece because they are much more afraid of their neighbors than they are of the law.
BMFL
Today, black pastors and political leaders are the ones who must patiently and caringly mold the bent perceptions of those who labor under the falsehood that white racism, in or out of a police uniform, is their worst problem.Lets rephrase that: Today, the black pastors and political leaders who are worthy of respect and admirationthe ones who mustpatiently and caringly mold the bent perceptions of blacks who are raciststhose who labor under the falsehood that white racism, in or out of a police uniform, is their worst problem.
Changing this sad status quo will be hard, because a racially healed America is bad news for . . . a media culture that thrives on racial discontent . . . politicians like Obama and Holder . . . opportunists who may have to get day jobs if the marketplace for riot-mongering dries up . . . [and] idle souls who lean on the crutch of white racism as an excuse for why they cannot be as productive as millions of their black brothers and sisters who have long since stopped whining about the man.Changing this sad status quo will be hard, in short, because of Grubercrats.
The real lesson of Ferguson is that 13.5% of the population ordinarily would not have a major impact on the rest of America. It only does because of the MSM ghouls and misery panderers and politicians.
We empower the dialogue of these few by listening to it and following it in the news. Isolate it, demonize it, and then discount it —Alinsky.
If the rest of America wants to know the lesson and what to do about it, google the 2010 census and search for % of blacks distribution by county and choose (if you can) your home territory carefully. I did in 2002.....1% in my county....there were absolutely no protests here about the Gentle Giant.
Guess what?I don’t care any more.
My goal is to live in communities that are nearly entirely white and to be in the company of whites as much as possible.
Excellent article. Thanks for posting.
1) No amount of evidence would have prevented the black thug population from using the death of the 300 pound adult thug as a pretext for additional crimes.
2) All the race baiters from Obama to Sharpton claim police shootings are the cause of America's high black body count when the real cause is other blacks committing murder against other blacks.
3) Depending on the city, blacks commit crimes at a rate of 7 to 10 times the rate whites do.
4) Liberals spend their time spotlighting white racism (real or imagined) as an all-purpose explanation for bad black outcomes, giving a pass to criminal thug blacks for all the crimes and murders they commit.
5) Pretending police behavior is the root of the problem is not only false, but foolish and dangerous. When you make police targets, you make low income neighborhoods much less safe.
6) It is the thug behavior of criminal blacks that is is the real problem.
OK - I am done for now.
I wonder what impressions people are forming, what fears are being confirmed, by watching something like Ferguson, where it's hard for many to understand rioting and tearing/burning down a community because what appears to be a big, street thuggish dude robbed a store, assaulted a cop while fighting for his gun, then charged the cop with intent and was killed for it...because the cop is white?!?
Every possible fear and negative impression ever formed about black America is reinforced by what is shown on TV and by trying to wrap your mind around its logic. That Ferguson comes after Trayvon and a knockout game summer is even more negative reinforcement, but now raised to a higher level.
So, back to the job interviews. If the employer has been watching the news, are you, young black man or woman, going to be seen as you are?
Or will you instead be seen via the impressions that have been formed/reinforced about "black" thanks this time to Ferguson?
If so, what does that mean for you if the employer has many diverse applicants to choose from?
From this point of view, you can see how normal people like us, regardless of color, people who just want a job or just want to hire someone of quality to help us do the work we want to do, are being made to carry this "baggage" of negative, false impressions, all in the name of community agitation and for the profitable glory of some political power.
The only place you can pile on garbage like this and out comes gold is on a compost pile, not on a constituency group.
This same divisive, community agitator garbage doesn't work well in the school system either.
Nope, it's the truth that sets us normal people free, not their garbage that keeps our reactions and results chained to bad impressions, thanks to their (and now our) lies that forge each link in that chain.
Will ours be the generation that finally breaks these chains or will their circle remain unbroken?
(with us trapped inside)
When you are up against emotional dismissals of rationality, your only hope of a rational hearing is in court. The principle I advocate is that it is folly to try to take on the small fry, you have to go after the big dog. And the big dog, with all due respect to the damage and danger of having a POTUS who is hostile to you, is journalism.People hear that, and instantly think that the First Amendment is an obstacle to any attack on journalism. But there are limits, some well-recognized, on the problem which the First Amendment presents to addressing libel. And that is what we are all experiencing, systematic libel. Libel of an entire class, and an entire political party. And not libel by a single newspaper, but of effectively all national newspapers, and broadcast radio news and TV news - as well as most cable TV channels.
First, just putting the name libel on it shows that it is possible to formulate a court case against it. Second, while the First Amendment codifies deference to the freedom of . . . the press, it does not create a class distinction amongst the people. Freedom of the press is a right of the people, not of a class of people. It belongs to you, and it belongs to me. Freedom of the press implies freedom to read journalism as well as the right to write it. It also implies the right to transmit and receive journalism with technologies which represent the fruits of the progress of science and useful arts, the promotion of which the Constitution explicitly cites as a part of the Framers' mission.
In addition to the laws of libel, two other laws can impinge on the freedom of journalists - the Sherman Antitrust Act and the law creating the FCC. I have seen the claim on a seemingly serious web site that the Associated Press lost a suit before SCOTUS in 1945 under the Sherman Antitrust Act. On its very face, the AP is an organization to tell all major journalism outlets what the news is.
There is a robust tradition of cooperation among newspapers tracing back to the founding era, when it was quite difficult to transmit the news expeditiously (as we would now consider expeditiously, it was impossible), and cooperation and sharing was the norm. But the AP raises that to an entirely different level, and not only solves the expeditiousness problem but creates a Style Guide for the composition of articles to be carried by the AP. Some of that style actually has merit in encouraging more informative and less florid composition. But part of that style homogenizes what can be said in an AP story.
It is painfully obvious that journalists have interests which conflict with the public interest. TV cameras love fires, and any sort of destruction because the public cannot but be interested by it. But while it interests people, destruction is patently inimical to the public interest. And yet we are informed - by teachers in school as well as by journalists themselves - that journalists are objective. This is patent nonsense. The claim of journalistic objectivity is most similar to claims of papal infallibility applied to secular matters. A newspaper article is composed and printed by people who are not even under oath, and therefore a newspaper article cannot without supporting testimony be dispositive in court.And even if an article be true, it inevitably must be less than the whole truth. And as with all partial tellings, even of truth, Half the truth is often a great lie. The usual problem with journalism is what is not said. But what is said is sometimes excruciatingly destructive. The Zimmerman case is an egregious example; NBC synthesized a lie by broadcasting an edited version of Zimmermans discussion with a police dispatcher in which an answer and then a question were excised. Blatant dishonesty. But it has to be brought to court properly.
The Zimmerman case is part of an obvious pattern, which now includes the officer Darren Wilson case and the Duke Lacrosse case and - going back a ways - the Twanna Brawley case, and undoubtedly others which dont immediately come to mind. Those are nominally - but only nominally - apolitical. For in all such cases, the actual target is much larger than the individual(s) involved. There are also the explicitly political cases - the Texas Air National Guard Memos - scare quotes denoting that the documents involved were forgeries - case, the arbitrary transmogrification of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization from a group of the people most knowledgeable about the naval experience of John Kerry into swiftboating as an unquestionably false narrative, without the intermediate step of actually demonstrating that any of the claims of the organization or its members were false.
Establishment journalism as we know it is a single entity, easily shown to tend to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, and it manifests a systematic slant against the rank-and-file Republican, and especially the Republican wing of the Republican Party known as the TEA party. That animus can be demonstrated. So what? So, the Federal Communications Commission has no right to promote journalism as being objective, or being anything other than a mouthpiece for special interests which profit at the expense of the public interest. There is no need to ask a court to declare conservative voices to be objective, but any court should recognize that the perspective of journalism is not inherently the public interest. Only the Constitution, and laws which are consistent with the Constitution, define the public interest.
The FCC has no right to even consider censoring or balancing so-called conservative (actually truly liberal) expressions such as the Rush Limbaugh show, et. al. As for the Federal Elections Commission, there is no public interest served by it, it is counter to the First Amendment, and all Campaign Finance Reform laws should be abolished by SCOTUS and/or Congress. Anyone who opposes the abolition of the FEC or the curtailment of the FCCs political influence is a Grubercat. An apparatchik.
You werent there, sir, and neither was I. But just from the video of the decedent in the convenience store, your gentle giant wasnt particularly gentle. And Im wondering why you want to believe that the officer was guilty. Is it because he is white? Is it because he is a police officer?If its because he is white, you are a racist.
If its because hes a police officer, you are advocating the dominance of the strong over the weak, the young over the old and the very young, the man over the woman. And you advocate the destruction of the stores in your area which provide things you want, and employ your neighbors.
Either way, you are a real piece of work.
You overcome...I'll take door B
Mark Davis personifies the problem
He thinks he gets it but he just regurgitates same white guilt and the perfunctory BJ for MLK
Proper response...reject all of it
And realize that old fears have been realized......and it’ bad.
Davis was raised in Maryland leafy suburbs......its not his fault